Health Committee on March 28th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

I call this meeting to order. Welcome to meeting number 59 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health.

Today we will consider Bill C-252 during the first hour, before proceeding to drafting instructions for the report on children’s health in camera for the second half of the meeting.

Today’s meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022.

In accordance with our routine motion, I'm informing the committee that all remote participants have completed the required connection tests in advance of the meeting. Today it was remarkably easy to do, because there are no remote participants.

I will now welcome Ms. Patricia Lattanzio, the member of Parliament from Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel and sponsor of Bill C-252, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (prohibition of food and beverage marketing directed at children).

We are also joined by two officials from Health Canada in case there are questions for the department about the legislation. They are David Lee, chief regulatory officer, health products and food branch, and Dr. Supriya Sharma, chief medical adviser and senior medical adviser, health products and food branch. They are in the room but not at the table. They are certainly available to you if you have questions for them, either after Ms. Lattanzio's presentation or as we go through clause-by-clause.

The plan, colleagues, is to have one round of questions from each party so that we can get through the clause-by-clause and on to committee business.

With that, Ms. Lattanzio, thank you so much for being here. You have up to five minutes for your opening statement.

Welcome to the committee.

You have the floor.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning to all committee members.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to present and discuss my private member's bill, Bill C-252, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act, also known as the child health protection act.

Bill C-252 aims to help the youngest and most impressionable Canadians maintain and improve their health by restricting their exposure to advertisements of food with excessive amounts of sugar, sodium and saturated fats.

I am confident that all members of this committee can agree on the harms that diets with excessive amounts of sugars, sodium and saturated fats can have on the health of Canadians and, more importantly, on that of our children. In fact, research has shown that unhealthy diets with excessive amounts of these nutrients are linked to a higher lifetime risk of high blood pressure, high levels of cholesterol, diabetes, and cardiovascular and other chronic diseases.

Despite the risks associated with these kinds of diets, Canadians remain the second-largest buyers in the world of ultra-processed foods and beverages, second only to the Americans. It is clear that things need to change.

That is why my bill is proposing to prohibit the advertisement to children of food with an excessive amount of sugars, sodium and saturated fats. This is based on the key fact—which we know from extensive research—that developing healthy eating habits early in life is important to help to protect children from suffering health problems in adulthood. We know perfectly well the high rate of publicity and advertisements that children are exposed to every day. From TV to billboards to the Internet, children are bombarded by hundreds of ads on a daily basis.

A 2017 report on the health of Canadians has shown that over 90% of food and beverage product advertisements viewed by children online and on TV have been for products that have a high content of sugars, sodium and saturated fats. Evidence shows that food advertising strongly influences children's food preferences and consumption patterns.

For example, a Yale University experiment demonstrated that 7- to 11-year-old children who watched a cartoon show that included food commercials ate 45% more snack foods while watching the show compared to children who watched the same cartoon show with non-food commercials. It is therefore not surprising to learn that kids aged 9 through 13 get more calories—almost 60%—from ultra-processed foods than any other age group.

Having had young children myself, I know just how difficult it can be to ensure our children develop good eating habits. Although we make sure that they get all the healthy nutrients they need, the reality is that our kids are constantly being exposed to and influenced by ads that are working very hard to entice them to products that we know contribute to a poor diet.

The food industry also has recently recognized and acknowledged the need to better regulate the advertising to children. That is probably why in 2022 some of the largest food and beverage companies in Canada adopted the code for the responsible advertising of food and beverage products to children, which Ad Standards will begin administering later in 2023.

Although the proposed code is a good effort, its voluntary nature is not enough to tackle and solve the issue. Relying on adhesion on a voluntary basis and on self-regulation will allow restaurants, food companies, food retailers and advertisers to abstain from signing on or to withdraw their membership in the code at their convenience. Furthermore, the code explicitly excludes key advertising techniques such as packaging and labels, which constitute tactics and sources of exposure that are known to appeal to or influence children. This exemption, therefore, showcases the important limits of the industry's self-declared criteria.

It is therefore imperative that a solid government policy and a framework are put in place to achieve the results that we must obtain and that our children deserve.

Honourable members, I ask that you seriously consider the positive impacts of this bill in order to ensure a healthier future for our children. I thank you in advance for your efforts in advancing Bill C-252 towards adoption and implementation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you very much, Ms. Lattanzio.

We're going to proceed now with rounds of—

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I appreciate this opening statement by Ms. Lattanzio. My understanding is that the general rule of this committee, up to this point, has been to have witnesses come when we are discussing private members' bills, in addition to the sponsor of the private member's bill. This was set up in such a way that we are going to have questions, not hear from any other witnesses and then go straight to clause-by-clause. That deviates from our traditional practice.

Can you confirm why that is? That wasn't a decision of the committee, from my remembrance.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

It was a decision of the committee.

Go ahead, Mr. Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

One of the few advantages of being a grizzled veteran is that I have some corporate memory of this issue.

In 2018 the Child Health Protection Act, which covered this issue, was introduced by Senator Nancy Greene Raine. That bill came to this committee. It was considered by HESA in 2018. At that time, we heard from 18 witnesses. We received 16 written briefs. The bill was also reviewed by the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. They heard from 22 witnesses and received 12 written briefs.

The bill had very strong support in the House of Commons and initially unanimous support in the Senate before it died on the Order Paper because of the 2019 election.

I just think it's important for all members of the committee to realize and note that we had this issue very well canvassed, and we heard from stakeholders as well. That might reassure my colleague.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Mr. Jeneroux, is this on the same point of order?

[Matt Jeneroux, Conservative, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Yes, indeed. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To my good friend Ms. Lattanzio, thank you for making the presentation here.

I don't want to belabour this point. Obviously, it's the will of the committee on where we go and what we do here. I just think in the time between the House and today, we have been inundated with a number of emails from people across Canada who would like to hear perhaps a bit more testimony. I don't think it necessarily needs to disrupt the day, if you will. If the committee seeks to add additional witnesses, I think it would probably be a reasonable idea to put forward.

Again, I don't want to belabour it, Chair, but I think it might be worthwhile hearing from a few other people at this stage.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Go ahead, Dr. Kitchen.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Thank you, Chair. I appreciate it.

As my colleagues have indicated and as our colleague Mr. Davies has pointed out, there are issues that have been brought up, going back to Senator Raine's legislation, basically on the bill's being put forward. There have been a couple of changes to it. There aren't many, but there are some minor ones, because you can't resubmit the same piece of legislation. There are changes to it. As my colleague has indicated, a number of us have received emails from various groups looking for opportunities to speak.

I agree that a lot of this has been brought up in previous iterations of the bill, but ultimately, as we move forward, I think we need to also look at the procedural process that Canadians expect of the government, that when a PMB is brought forward, an opportunity is given for people to speak to it.

As to the length of it, I think it could be curtailed in the sense of the length of time and number of witnesses, but I think it behooves us as Canadians to at least have that opportunity and follow due process, as we normally do.

I would at least ask, respectfully, for consideration of this situation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Dr. Kitchen.

It's Ms. Goodridge and then Mr. van Koeverden.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

I appreciate that this bill came forward, in a similar format, back in 2018. However, parliamentarians have been elected since that point in time, such as me. While I have gone through and seen some of those concerns, we're not dealing with the same time frame or the same exact issues. I think it's incumbent upon us to make sure we're always looking at these bills and treating them in that new light.

Had there been a brief prepared for this committee with all of that previous information and every single witness, etc.... Had that been the answer, rather than having witnesses and conversations while we were in a meeting, perhaps I could have accepted that as an answer. However, to say, “Oh, because we studied this before, we're going to choose not to study it this time; just trust us”....

I don't think that's the best practice for any Parliament, quite frankly. That's not how we treat government bills, and I don't think that's how we should be treating private member's bills. I think it's incumbent upon us, after hearing from a number of stakeholders in the last few weeks. They have some minor concerns. It's valuable to make sure we're hearing from stakeholders on the actual substance of this particular bill, not applying the same arguments made to previous bills because it's easier and quicker to do.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Go ahead, Mr. van Koeverden.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

There's been a little ambiguity, this morning, about stakeholders out in Canada's ecosystem who would like to speak to this bill. It's also incumbent on us to be specific for the people who may be listening and interested in who, out there, has concerns about this bill. It will come as no surprise to anybody that it's the same group of people who opposed it before: the Canadian Beverage Association and people who have a vested interest in the advertising dollars behind the very profitable nature of encouraging children to drink very sugary beverages and eat snacks that are unhealthy.

We're faced with a quandary, here. Who are we here to stand up for? This is the health committee. What is our obligation, as members of the health committee? The obligation of the health committee is to stand up for kids and step forward to make sure.... This bill has been presented in the past. We heard from those organizations and recognize those companies have a vested interest and a very financial rationale for wanting to continue to market sugary drinks and unhealthy snacks to kids. Over the last couple of months, we've also heard from children's health advocates about the very significant impact those products have on children's health.

I'm of the opinion that we need to move forward. Frankly, we need to move quickly. We've heard from the organizations with concerns. Just because I wasn't elected prior to 2019, it doesn't mean that information is not available to me. It is, and quite thoroughly. I've had a look at some of those conversations. From my perspective—and I think my colleagues on this side would agree—I'm good to move forward. The reports are there. The former HESA studies were done. The opposition this bill encountered in the Senate a couple of years ago was very unfortunate. It really delayed progress on Canada's becoming a healthier country.

I'm not willing to debate this any further. It's already been too long. I know who I'm here for.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Mr. Thériault, you have the floor.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the opportunity to serve on the committee with my colleague Mr. Davies, who took part in the consideration of a similar bill in the past.

On the substance, I agree with Mr. van Koeverden. However, I have a quibble with something. The minister mentioned that the Association of Canadian Advertisers has a code and a guide with which advertisers will be expected to comply as of July 2023. It seems to me that this is a new factor that was not discussed in 2018. If we were to meet with the group to discuss a new factor, it seems to me that this would be it.

Quebec adopted the Consumer Protection Act a long time ago, but it's outdated. We won't be able to achieve the objective if the main stakeholders don't work hand in hand with us legislators. I was thinking that they might have some meaningful amendments to propose to us, and we might welcome them to improve Bill C‑252.

My role is to improve this bill based on the objectives Mr. van Koeverden talked about. If we were to make a compromise in the discussion this morning, I feel that focusing specifically on this group, who seem to have the same objectives as we do, might be an acceptable compromise that wouldn't slow down our work very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Thériault.

We have Ms. Goodridge and then Dr. Kitchen.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think much of what was brought up by Mr. Thériault is very pointed and important.

While Mr. van Koeverden has signalled a couple of the stakeholders who have made requests to appear, the Canadian Cancer Society has also reached out, as have other stakeholders I've heard from and just normal moms and dads.

I know who I'm here for. I'm here for regular, everyday, hard-working moms and dads. I frankly think that it is a slap in the face to say, “Oh, this was studied back in 2018. Things have changed, but that's fine; we don't have to look at that. Let's just put this forward,” without giving it due consideration. Is this applicable? How can we put this in? What are the concerns of industry? How have they identified and addressed some of these concerns, and does this go too far or not far enough? I think these are all questions that we should be asking ourselves as legislators, to make sure we have the best possible legislation.

If this legislation is so perfect, then why does the government have so many amendments to the government piece of this private member's bill? I think that's another important question that we should be asking ourselves here. If this private member's bill was completely flawless, we wouldn't have a pile of amendments coming from the government to change it. We would be here with a handful of amendments from opposition parties.

I think that it's an important fact that we have to take into consideration. The government isn't even happy with the full contents of this bill. If it was, it wouldn't have put forward these amendments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Go ahead, Dr. Kitchen.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate that. I appreciate the member's comments and Mr. Thériault's comments. I think a lot of them are very astute and very wise.

I appreciate Mr. van Koeverden and his comments about standing up for kids, and I agree that we need to be there, standing up for kids. I'm a diabetic. I understand that aspect of things. I remember the days when I coached hockey and the challenges I had when I was coaching, back in the day when we used to call it squirt, peewee and these other levels. The reality was that we were there and we were watching kids running to the concession stands to buy these caffeinated drinks, sugar drinks or power drinks, because they saw the advertising that's out there. Those were huge challenges.

As a coach, it was extremely challenging. As a doctor, it was extremely challenging to try to rationalize that with these individuals. The other big challenge was also rationalizing with their parents. Ultimately, it is they who make that decision when it comes to looking after their children. They're the ones who make the decisions as to what their children see and what their children consume. Those are things I think definitely need to be discussed.

We have heard, as I've said, from individual constituents who might be concerned, as well as from other agencies that are putting their concerns in place.

Rightly or wrongly, the bottom line is that as a committee, we're here to hear both sides of the story. We're not to make assumptions based on one or the other. We should be hearing both sides of the story before we make that decision with our challenges as we move forward. I believe it's something that we should at least consider as we move forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Dr. Kitchen.

Go ahead, Mr. Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you.

First of all, I don't doubt the bona fides of everybody at this committee. I think everybody wants to do the right thing.

I think a bit of a brief summary of its history is important.

In 2007, the food and beverage industry launched the Canadian children's food and beverage advertising initiative. That is basically a voluntary code that was limited to broadcast advertising. That's been in place for quite a while.

Health Canada has indicated for several years now that it intends to address the issue of the marketing of unhealthy food to children. Its 2016 healthy eating strategy—that's seven years ago—included the statement, “Health Canada will restrict the commercial marketing of unhealthy foods and beverages to kids.”

In December 2017—about six years ago—the department released its consultation report, “Restricting Marketing of Unhealthy Food and Beverages to Children in Canada”, which outlined stakeholder responses to the department's proposed approach to restricting such advertising.

The current mandate letter issued to the Minister of Health and the ones issued—I think every single one—since 2015, have included an instruction to either introduce or support restrictions on the commercial marketing of food and beverages to children. As my colleague, Mr. Thériault, has pointed out, Quebec has had legislation in this area for many years. In fact, it's much broader legislation.

There are a couple of things I want to say.

There's nothing new here. In fact, I would say we're much delayed in introducing legislation.

Second, I don't think it's a tenable statement to suggest that we haven't heard from people. Every stakeholder, every parent and every group have had multiple opportunities to have their input.

In terms of government amendments to this bill, I've reviewed every amendment from both sides of this room. I think the amendments from the government are more in the nature of administrative or honing amendments. They don't change the substance of the bill. They sort of shape the definitions to put it in more of a regulation-friendly way.

The last thing I'm going to say is that we're talking about the health of our children here, so I don't think it's unreasonable to raise whether have we canvassed this issue enough. I just think that the record is very clear: We have.

I agree with my colleagues who weren't on this committee in 2018, but that record is there, as Mr. van Koeverden pointed out. The Hansard record is there to read it all. If any member of this committee wants to find out what stakeholders have to say about this, it's there. We don't have to hear it in person again.

Now, I'll conclude that if we do hear it in person, there's one result of this. It is that we'll delay. We'll delay legislation that is geared at improving our children's health and that we've been waiting the better part of a decade to bring to this House.

The question I would ask is, for what purpose? What's gained? Are we going to hear something new? No. Are we going prevent people who wanted to have their say from doing so? No.

When I contrast that to the impact this will have on seven-year-old, nine-year-old, 11-year-old or 12-year-old children, who.... We've heard in this committee many times that there is an epidemic of childhood obesity in this country. This goes to a very strong matter of public health.

I think we'll have an opportunity to question Ms. Lattanzio, who introduced this bill, but I think it's really time to act.

If I thought that we were going to hear anything new or if this bill were significantly different in any way from the bill that's been introduced in the past, then I would support my Conservative colleague's motion in this regard, but it's not. This is the same legislation on the same issue that's been much delayed, much studied and much heard from.

I think we, as parliamentarians, have a duty to the children of this country to act.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Thank you, Mr. Davies.

Just to be clear, this discussion actually started on a point of order, and there isn't a motion on the floor. In fact, to bring a motion would be out of order until we're no longer dealing with a point of order.

The Conservatives will get the first speaking slot when we go to questions. That would be the time to bring a motion, if a motion is coming forward.

We're still on the point of order, and Dr. Ellis has the floor.

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Thank you very much, Chair, and thank you to my colleagues.

I know perhaps I missed some of this debate, but in my mind the one thing we need to be very clear about when we're talking about enacting legislation is what the science shows. I think the important point also to consider is, when you look at the bigger picture of the science with respect to creating change, whether it's a personal decision or whether it's a government decision to change your behaviour. We know the science with respect to that is not very supportive in terms of saying to people, you should change your behaviour. You should eat differently. You should exercise more. Those are things on which, when we ask people to do them, the likelihood of change is minimal.

The issue at hand is we've had an ongoing situation in Quebec, where similar and perhaps more widespread legislation has been enacted. What do the studies show there? What has the outcome been? Have we actually impacted childhood obesity? In my mind, we could talk about this for days, but if we're not going to make a difference in the lives of children, then why are we doing anything at all? That's the question.

I know my colleague from the NDP, Mr. Davies, is exceedingly convinced this is going to work. My question is, is there science out there to support the fact that this is actually going to work? Is it going to make a change in the lives of Canadian children? If it's not, then we need to look at something different, as opposed to continuing to do the same thing that's been tried in this committee, and perhaps in the House of Commons, for many years, over and over and over again.

That would be my biggest question: What is the science that is attached to this? If there has been another set of legislation that's been enacted in another jurisdiction, what are the outcomes of that change in legislation? If we're doing the right thing, great. I think in the spirit of what we've seen not every time in this committee, but many times in this committee, we should move forward for the benefit of the health of Canadians. If we're not, then that doesn't mean we should accept something and say it's the best we can do. Is it really the best we can do? If it's not, then we need to change it precipitously and make sure it is.

I agree with Mr. Davies wholeheartedly that there is an epidemic of obesity here. You don't need to be a physician to understand that there is. How can we actually change that, though? How do we make it different? How do we improve it? We all know that spending, as my colleagues across the aisle would say, $200 billion on health care is not improving the outcomes of the health of people in this country. How do we do that? How do we go about creating good legislation? That's the question I have.

Also, the other issue is that, continuing on—I believe one of my colleagues said this already—the spirit of this committee is one of co-operation and one of saying, if we want to hear from stakeholders with respect to an issue, then we should. That is how we've operated in this committee over the 18 months that I've been here. If we deviate from that, does that mean we're now going to deviate from every other procedure we possibly have in this committee in terms of how we do things? In other committees I've been on, when the member wants to interrupt a witness, they do so. On this committee we do it differently. We say, we'll allow the witness to answer in the same amount of time as the question was asked. I think that's a reasonable way to do things. However, if we're going to have a wholesale change in how we do business in this committee, then I'm open to change with that.

There are lots of people I'd like to interrupt. In fact, I'm sure there are people who would like to interrupt me now. I will stop talking and turn it over to you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sean Casey]

Ms. Sidhu, please.